No kidding. I'm of two minds about this. Somethimes you can have too much of a good thing, such as the messiness of trying to browse the archive.org site. It would probably also be a little more polite to the reader to post the actual review instead of a link.

No kidding. I'm of two minds about this. Somethimes you can have too much of a good thing, such as the messiness of trying to browse the archive.org site. It would probably also be a little more polite to the reader to post the actual review instead of a link.

Hi Forrest - that'll be me posting the links, I guess. Unfortunately I'll get into all sorts of tangles cross-posting, as Google doesn't look kindly on duplicate content without lots of work behind the scenes. Running EarTickles is costing me money as well as time, so I won't cross-post - I've already had a similar discussion with jkn about this over on Relaxed Machinery.

I could start posting "teasers", as I already do on rM, with John's consent. Alternatively, I could stop posting links to reviews here altogether. What would everyone prefer? I'll go with the majority view, whatever that is.

Your reviews are interesting and I don't want to discourage you from posting them, but I think it might be helpful if you grouped the ones that were posted at the same time (for example, referencing your 7 reviews on June 4 in a single post). The link within a post resembles viruses that have appeared on this forum, but it's not that big a deal to me.

Your reviews are interesting and I don't want to discourage you from posting them, but I think it might be helpful if you grouped the ones that were posted at the same time (for example, referencing your 7 reviews on June 4 in a single post). The link within a post resembles viruses that have appeared on this forum, but it's not that big a deal to me.

EarTickles was launched on 29 May, and I only joined the Forum here on June 4. The links to the earlier reviews were simply intended to bring anyone interested in reading them up to date. There's no way I'll ever write more than one review a day.

I took the decision from the outset not to use a URL shortener - I'd loved to have used j.mp, which I use all the time on my personal Twitter account, but that would obfuscate links for people that don't know me. So I'm not sure why my links look any more like viruses than those posted by others in, say, "Forum Member Projects News and Promotion".

We have had posters in the past who have directed people to their websites (usually because they are selling something), but have not participated in the forum discussions. I prefer to read a discussion, and not be directed to an external website, but, like I said, it's no big deal and merely intended as a friendly suggestion.

We have had posters in the past who have directed people to their websites (usually because they are selling something), but have not participated in the forum discussions. I prefer to read a discussion, and not be directed to an external website, but, like I said, it's no big deal and merely intended as a friendly suggestion.

Just discovering this post... Over on rM.ning - I asked Baxter to post a paragraph or so - enough for someone to get the idea if they wanted to keep reading - and then post the link back to Ear Tickles. Another reviewer sometimes does the same.

As long as it's not "just a link" - I'm ok with it on rM - and while Mike of course always has final say here... I don't mind it here either.